Why do YOU have the right to vote on MY rights?

I do represent a "Gay Outlook" with my membership and staff position at Equality Virginia. So given your self-admitted lack of credentials and my affirmed credentials, who would you say has the greater voice?

 

As I said in a previous post, the "package" is secular. It is not a "norm" but a proscribed civil procedure.

 

According to John Rawls, The Theory of Justice, the common good does not have a religious morality but one of it's own.

 

I did! I compared it to the right to worship as one chooses.

 

Same-sex couples aren't out to alter the definition of marriage either. We just want what the interracial couples wanted: equal marriage rights.

 

Explain exactly how we're trying to redefine marriage. That's the biggest load of **** yet. We're trying to change the laws about who is allowed to be married. We're not trying to change the definition of marriage at all.

 

I really don't understand the people who are saying marraige isn't a Human Right, and those saying Gays only want to be married for the tax breaks?

Excuse me but, why do hetrosexuals get married? Whatever your answer to that is, it's the exact same for gays.

And good grief, those saying it's not a human right apparantly never learned about UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

-------

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 217A (III) of 10 December 1948

16
1 Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

-------

No wonder the people who want to deny this basic Human Right are the same people who would like to see the U.S drop out of the United Nations.

 

That's funny; the Mormons used to claim it was ended because of divine revelation.

Of course not. Under human law, a woman can only be married to one man at a time. Your God, however, has sanctioned the sealing of Marie Osmond in eternal marriage to two different men. Very sacred, that. Or is she just living in open adultery with the second?

 

Regarding polygamy, what about Lamech? (Genesis 4:19-24)

 

Read my posts...I have not asked you anything but if my answers were sufficient.

I have not used conclusions as evidence, but stated a logical flow of facts that a person can follow to a conclusion.

example: humans have rights...heterosexuals, asians, whites, blacks, indians, and so on are humans and have rights. Homosexuals are humans (check it out...it's a biological fact deary) and therefore are deservent of the rights awarded to humans. One of these rights in this country is the right of marriage. To commit to another person in a legally binding way that gives the couple certain rights and priviledges that a non-married couple are not awarded or recipients of.

At no time have I answered a question of your with a question nor have I just stated "conclusions" without anyway of showing the path to get to those conclusions. Just because you don't want to accept a logical flow of facts doesn't mean it hasn't been presented.

 

Not nearly enough. I'm sick and tired of being told that my relationship is immoral, and that I'm unfit to marry, by people who have so little grounding and so poor a track record at marriage themselves. Conservative Protestants and Mormons are more likely to be divorced than atheists and agnostics. Catholics are just as likely to be divorced as atheists and agnostics.

If these sanctimonious hypocrites were so interested in protecting the sanctity of marriage, they'd turn their eye to their own communities. For instance, the number of annulments granted to American Roman Catholics increased more than 18,000% between 1968 and 1990. The Church is unwilling to admit that this is just a euphemism for divorce; if it's not, we can only conclude that the Catholic Church is increasingly incapable of knowing how to celebrate a valid marriage in the first place. Meanwhile, the Church for decades deliberately covered up and perpetuated sexual abuse by its own clergy. And they have the audacity, the unmitigated hypocrisy, to attempt to dictate to people outside their church who they can and cannot marry, and to wrap it up in blather about "sanctity". Not that the LDS Church or the Southern Baptist Convention are any better.

If there were a hell, it would gape for such hypocrisy.

This is not a matter of "opinion," it's not a matter of "different values," it is, plain and simple, a matter of good and evil -- and religious conservatives have both feet solidly planted on the side of evil.

 

Can somebody - anybody, because Nutshell has wussed out under pressure and so obviously wont be gracing me with a reply - reconcile this:
[QUOTE = Nutshell] (post #241 top of page 25)
...explain why gay marriage is a human right, but no one could do it. You call this tyranny, but I wonder why I should support something that cannot be explained.

[/QUOTE]
With this:

So, how can someone believe that marriage is a human right but need someone to explain why gay marriage is a human right?
Tell you what, Nutshell...how about you sit down with a piece of paper and write down all the reasons you believe marriage is a human right, then title it,'What Makes Gay Marriage A Human Right', post it to yourself and bloody well read it. That way, someone who's opinion you respect will have explained to you why gay marriage is a human right, rather than just a whole lot of people who know what they're talking about.

How original...

so, which one of these people is God? Unless one of them is God himself, then that's not His definition, that's the definition of someone else. I'm afraid when I ask for a diety to give an opinion, I expect that if they have one and wish to share, they will give it. I respect that this is your religion, but frankly the words of these people hold as much water as a collander with me when it comes to expressing the opinion of God.
It explains why God's so quiet though.There are so many people putting words into his mouth, he can't get any of his own out.:tsk:

 

Not to be rude, just want to point something out and you probably already knew this so this is probably a very redundant thought. We believe that the First Presdiency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, receives daily revelations and we believe they are speaking for God and what God wants to hear. And you probably already knew that, don't flame me please, just pointing something out. Peace out and have a wonderful day.

 

I get that Beck, that's why I said,'I respect that this is your religion.' I understand why you guys would consider it to be the opinion of God,but for those not of your faith, it's just LDS opinion, like the Pope expresses Catholic opinion rather than God's opinion.
No flaming for you.

 

I appreciated the majority of your post, but just wanted to point out that generalizations are by their nature generalized. That means that they refer to a general trend and do not refer to a specific anamoly within the general trend.

Yourself and a lot of other folks on this thread have mentioned that the opening post is an opinion based on a generalization about conservative Christians. Well duhhh..! Generalizations are called generalizations because they are generalized. They don't address specific anomalies because they are generalized.

Although the original poster's opinions are based on a generalization, the generalization is accurate. The fact that the specific anamolies associated with this particular generalization were ignored is irrelevant.

A few rare "conservative Christians" do disagree with the sexual prejudices being promoted and justified by the vast majority of conservative Christian religious sects. But this thread wasn't about those.

 

I'm sorry, I'm confused as to what you mean by "evidence" that something is a human right.

Maybe it would help if you provided the "evidence" that freedom of expression is a human right, so we could see an example of what you mean.

To me, the "evidence" that the government has no right to forbid something = the lack of evidence that that "something" has a significant negative impact on individuals and/or society. For example, I would say the "evidence" that being a Mormon is a human right = the fact that there is NO evidence that being Mormon infringes on the rights of others.

But please, give us an example. Select something you believe to be a human right, and give us the "evidence" for it so we understand your question.

 

Good questions.

How do we determine an "unalienable right"?

 

First, it is NOT just a euphemism for divorce, and second, you are correct, tons of "Catholics" these days DON'T understand what they are getting into. A lot of it has to do with how uneducated and unprincipled many of them are. This has come about due to massive loss of touch with morals and conscience in our society.

 

Completely disagree and a flat out lie.